|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 5, 2023 15:10:06 GMT
It depends on how tall you are.  5 ft 4. I'm buggered! 😂 Dont andrew. Your height reminds me of that old joke...
Midget walks into govan library and asks the librarian if he has any books on midget discrimination.
Librarian replies" aye pal tap shelf. " |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 5, 2023 15:11:19 GMT
Lol, have you read the posts on here? Class wars at large. I haven't noticed that it is........I was lucky enough to pass my 11 plus and I certainly don't think I am superior to others who did not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2023 15:22:39 GMT
In most Comprehensive schools there are Remedial Classes, or similar, which attend to the needs of slow learners, and those with less ability.
If there is an argument for separating bright children, and children who learn quickly from children of average ability, then why is there no argument for separating children of below average ability. ?
My point here is that the word "Comprehensive" means to cater for everyone, to provide the means of providing a good education for children of ALL ABILITIES.
There is no logical argument for Grammar Schools, and to pretend that there is, is to support a policy of superiority and pure snobbery.
At the Comprehensive Schools I went to there was a class for slow learners, and there was a class for pupils who wanted to learn more practical skills as opposed to academic qualifications, and there were classes for the brighter pupils.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 5, 2023 15:24:57 GMT
No, my concern is that the 11+ system was flawed, which is why the Comprehensive system was introduced. One more added weakness of the 11+ is that it did not even recognise let alone compensate for the estimated 20% of people who are late developers. 13+ …you have been told about this . If 11+ ignored the problem of late developers, or probably never even thought about it, why would the 13+ approached be any different ? The likelihood is that those who sat the 13+ exams were people who had expected to pass, and perhaps should have passed the 11+ but for some reason failed. The 13+ people might possibly have had some private tuition in the meantime in an attempt to keep up with those who were already in the grammar school. A late developer doesn't suddenly catch up in development in two years, plus catch up with the two years of grammar school study they have missed. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 5, 2023 16:11:35 GMT
In most Comprehensive schools there are Remedial Classes, or similar, which attend to the needs of slow learners, and those with less ability. If there is an argument for separating bright children, and children who learn quickly from children of average ability, then why is there no argument for separating children of below average ability. My point here is that the word "Comprehensive" means to cater for everyone, to provide the means of providing a good education for children of ALL ABILITIES. There is no logical argument for Grammar Schools, and to pretend that there is, is to support a policy of superiority and pure snobbery. At the Comprehensive Schools I went to there was a class for slow learners, and there was a class for pupils who wanted to learn more practical skills as opposed to academic qualifications, and there were classes for the brighter pupils. When I was 9 or just over I had an abscess in my left ear which kept me out of school for nearly 12 weeks. When I went back to school I just couldn't catch up with others. And at the end of term exam I dropped a grade, The class then had only around a dozen of us and the teacher who took us read my exam reports and could see that I was no dunce and the fact I had difficulties in catching up. She called my parents into school and she formed a plan of giving me extra tuition and a strict homework regime which I rigidly stuck too. I think that teacher was the one who realised that I was dyslexic and tought me at my own pace. Of course even if you have a really good school teacher these days they cannot afford that type od dedication because of the large class sizes they have now got to endure. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 5, 2023 17:14:32 GMT
13+ …you have been told about this . If 11+ ignored the problem of late developers, or probably never even thought about it, why would the 13+ approached be any different The likelihood is that those who sat the 13+ exams were people who had expected to pass, and perhaps should have passed the 11+ but for some reason failed. The 13+ people might possibly have had some private tuition in the meantime in an attempt to keep up with those who were already in the grammar school. A late developer doesn't suddenly catch up in development in two years, plus catch up with the two years of grammar school study they have missed. The 13+ approach would be to give the late developers another chance …as you wanted. In 1966 a 13 year old would have been in education for 7or 8 years ,would be two years away from mock O levels and three years away from O level. Just how late are there late developers that you refer to? If the aforesaid late developer stayed in secondary school then they would have the opportunity to take the CSE exam. An A pass in the CSE exam was considered a C pass in GCE.iirc. So if the late developer did well enough in his secondary school , they would still be able to access 6 th form college. Going to a secondary school was not an automatic ticket to failure. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 5, 2023 17:28:48 GMT
In most Comprehensive schools there are Remedial Classes, or similar, which attend to the needs of slow learners, and those with less ability. If there is an argument for separating bright children, and children who learn quickly from children of average ability, then why is there no argument for separating children of below average ability. My point here is that the word "Comprehensive" means to cater for everyone, to provide the means of providing a good education for children of ALL ABILITIES. There is no logical argument for Grammar Schools, and to pretend that there is, is to support a policy of superiority and pure snobbery. At the Comprehensive Schools I went to there was a class for slow learners, and there was a class for pupils who wanted to learn more practical skills as opposed to academic qualifications, and there were classes for the brighter pupils. In one breath you argue for section by ability and in the next you argue against it.. well done that man..  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 5, 2023 17:31:51 GMT
so the answer to that is to scrap Grammar Schools and bring everyone down to the level of Comprehensive School?.. don't quite see what that does to improve education in the UK - although I suspect that was not the point and it was more to tick a box called 'Equality'
If approaching 50% of the also ran proved to be successful at comprehensives, why would those who were successful in grammar schools fail in a comprehensive school? What stops you doing that while still having Grammar Schools? I dont see how giving a cohort a worse education is going to make the entire system better. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2023 18:07:36 GMT
If 11+ ignored the problem of late developers, or probably never even thought about it, why would the 13+ approached be any different The likelihood is that those who sat the 13+ exams were people who had expected to pass, and perhaps should have passed the 11+ but for some reason failed. The 13+ people might possibly have had some private tuition in the meantime in an attempt to keep up with those who were already in the grammar school. A late developer doesn't suddenly catch up in development in two years, plus catch up with the two years of grammar school study they have missed. The 13+ approach would be to give the late developers another chance …as you wanted. In 1966 a 13 year old would have been in education for 7or 8 years ,would be two years away from mock O levels and three years away from O level. Just how late are there late developers that you refer to? If the aforesaid late developer stayed in secondary school then they would have the opportunity to take the CSE exam. An A pass in the CSE exam was considered a C pass in GCE.iirc. So if the late developer did well enough in his secondary school , they would still be able to access 6 th form college. Going to a secondary school was not an automatic ticket to failure. Would not the streaming in comprehensives have the same effect (Assuming comprehensives received the same funding per pupil as grammar schools. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 5, 2023 18:08:35 GMT
In most Comprehensive schools there are Remedial Classes, or similar, which attend to the needs of slow learners, and those with less ability. If there is an argument for separating bright children, and children who learn quickly from children of average ability, then why is there no argument for separating children of below average ability. My point here is that the word "Comprehensive" means to cater for everyone, to provide the means of providing a good education for children of ALL ABILITIES. There is no logical argument for Grammar Schools, and to pretend that there is, is to support a policy of superiority and pure snobbery. At the Comprehensive Schools I went to there was a class for slow learners, and there was a class for pupils who wanted to learn more practical skills as opposed to academic qualifications, and there were classes for the brighter pupils. There used to be, they were called by various names but were effectively for ESN kids. And the logical argument for grammar schools is you have to pass an exam in order to get an education that matches your ability. At grammar schools there were invariably woodwork and metalwork classes for boys and domestic science for girls, that was also true of secodary schools. Apart from that, there was an exam available at 13 allowing those successful to enter a technical college; now that's what I call a comprehensive system. It must hurt when you realise that many Labour politicians went to grammar school or, in the case of Blair, to a private school. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 5, 2023 18:11:44 GMT
The 13+ approach would be to give the late developers another chance …as you wanted. In 1966 a 13 year old would have been in education for 7or 8 years ,would be two years away from mock O levels and three years away from O level. Just how late are there late developers that you refer to? If the aforesaid late developer stayed in secondary school then they would have the opportunity to take the CSE exam. An A pass in the CSE exam was considered a C pass in GCE.iirc. So if the late developer did well enough in his secondary school , they would still be able to access 6 th form college. Going to a secondary school was not an automatic ticket to failure. Would not the streaming in comprehensives have the same effect (Assuming comprehensives received the same funding per pupil as grammar schools. It wasn't part of the idea of comprehensives but secondary moderns did stream. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2023 18:22:51 GMT
Would not the streaming in comprehensives have the same effect (Assuming comprehensives received the same funding per pupil as grammar schools. It wasn't part of the idea of comprehensives but secondary moderns did stream. Comprehensives used 'Setting' as compared to 'Streaming' Streaming puts a child in a group based on general ability Setting puts a child in a group based on subject by subject ability. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 5, 2023 18:38:27 GMT
It wasn't part of the idea of comprehensives but secondary moderns did stream. Comprehensives used 'Setting' as compared to 'Streaming' Streaming puts a child in a group based on general ability Setting puts a child in a group based on subject by subject ability. Does that mean if you're lousy at maths you don't do maths lessons? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 5, 2023 18:46:48 GMT
Comprehensives used 'Setting' as compared to 'Streaming' Streaming puts a child in a group based on general ability Setting puts a child in a group based on subject by subject ability. Does that mean if you're lousy at maths you don't do maths lessons? Nah - they just make you Chancellor of the Exchequer instead.. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 5, 2023 18:50:08 GMT
Does that mean if you're lousy at maths you don't do maths lessons? Nah - they just make you Chancellor of the Exchequer instead.. Well I have to say that's a better thought out answer. |
|
